I’m surprised that in the last two decades, when every retro TV show, comic book, and even toys were being bought up by film studios to adapt into crappy movies, that it took this long to adapt one of the most beloved children’s books of the last century. Maurice Sendak’s “Where the Wild Things Are” tells the story of Max, who, after being punished, travels to the land of the wild things, becomes their king, and then returns home. The story is beautifully simple and could have been adapted numerous ways and become a vastly different movie. Spike Jonze, director of “Adaptation” and “Being John Malkovich,” chooses to concentrate on the melancholy and the nostalgic aspects of the book, or “melancholgia,” (coined by IFC) adding multiple shots of Max (played by Max Records) staring wordlessly and longingly off into the distance, or at his sister, or at a pile of wild things. That’s not to say that his movie isn’t funny. It contains just enough jokes to keep younger children enthralled, but “Where the Wild Things Are” completes a transition that has been happening for the last decade or so.

When “Shrek” was released in 2001 it started a trend that has since run rampant through children’s movies. “Shrek” contained just as many jokes for adults as it did for children. When it grossed over $250 million, naturally other studios took notice. Movies like “The Incredibles,” “Ratatouille,” “Ice Age,” and “Over the Hedge” kept pushing the boundaries of the formula, until “WALL-E” became hugely popular, while also remaining a very challenging movie for its younger audience. With its “artsy movie- type” marketing and Arcade Fire adorned trailer, “Where the Wild Things Are” seemed targeted more to the hipster crowd who read the book as a child than to children themselves.

With all that being said, “Where the Wild Things Are” is a beautifully directed movie. You wouldn’t know it from “Being John Malkovich,” but Spike Jonze can shoot trees like Terrence Malick. The wild things themselves are a feat of special effects genius, combining practical puppetry effects with CGI to create wild things with as much expression and character as the human actors.

The main plot of the film, as one who read the book would imagine, is about a boy who feels neglected and how he travels (perhaps in his own mind) to the land of the wild things, where he becomes their king and tries to fix their society. The wild things all seem to face suspiciously similar problems of loneliness and neglect that Max experiences at home.

Max Records, in his second film performance, displays a range of emotions that many adult actors have spent years trying to discover. (I’m looking at you, Ashton Kutcher). Like most of the best child actors (in fact, all actors), Records’ strength comes from the moments of quietness in the film, not when he’s jumping around acting like a wild thing. His maturity on the screen is special in an actor of his age. Records should be a face we will see more frequently very soon.

The voice acting in this movie is equally special. While many animated movies fill out their voice roles with as much celebrity as they can, not necessarily as much acting talent, “Where the Wild Things Are” happily does not. You’re not going to see John Travolta or Miley Cyrus in the credits. Voice acting is not a throw-away role, and this movie personifies great voice acting. James Gandolfini, as Carroll, Max’s wild thing counter part, and Catherine O’Hara, the comic relief Judith, display as much emotion in their voice roles as Ben Affleck did in his entire nineties filmography (and I’m an Affleck fan…I hope I didn’t just lose all credibility). I found myself closing my eyes at times just to hear Gandolfini talk.

The rest of the adult cast, both screen and voice, turn in quality performances, and that’s to Jonze’s credit; he doesn’t allow anyone to phone it in, but it’s also a credit to the casting. Catherine Keener, Paul Dano, Forest Whitaker, and Chris Cooper all turn in performances that rank with their best work.

THE BOTTOM LINE: If you are over the age of fifteen and read the book when you were younger, see this movie. The mixture of nostalgia, laughs, and melancholy will be right up your alley. If you are a parent I would leave the very young at home, but if your children are above the age of six, and they can handle a more challenging movie, this would be a great experience for the both of you.

Matthew Strickland is a senior at Drexel University. He studies English and Philosophy, and is anticipated to graduate in March of 2010.